The supposition that the kind of people who call publicly for beheadings, or tell Europe to prepare itself for the real holocaust (the connection between Muslim extremism and Holocaust denial being a very strong one), will feel placated by a few expressions of sympathy for their supposedly offended feelings is psychologically preposterous and demonstrably false empirically. It is the reductio ad absurdum of the Clintonian propensity to feel other people’s pain as a substitute for a policy.

At some point, we shall have to confront the threat directly, unapologetically and vigorously. If we don’t, it will be our own pain that we shall feel, not the pain of other people. And, in a sense, we shall have got what we asked for.

Bush (and Olmert) have been way too easy on these islamofascists. REPEAT: they do not warrant apologies; they need a real ass-kicking, and then a force-feeding of a big can of STFU.

There are certain places one expects to find anti- Israel sentiments openly expressed, but a major U.S. political party is not one of them. Increasingly, though, we are seeing a radicalization in the Democratic Party and the anti-Israel sentiment which was once the mark of the leftist fringe now appears in major Democratic forums.

One example comes from former President Jimmy Carter, who sharply criticized Israel's actions against Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. In an interview in Der Spiegel magazine (August 15, 2006), while the fighting in Lebanon was at its height, Carter said, "I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon." He also told Der Spiegel, "I think I represent the vast majority of Democrats in this country. I think there is a substantial portion of American people that completely agree with me."

Sadly, Carter is not alone. Remarks like his are not the opinions of a few random politicians, but regrettably represent the views of the grassroots of the Democratic Party.

Recent polling has shown a sharp disparity between Republicans' and Democrats' support for Israel. A NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in late July also showed a strong gap between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to support for Israel. The poll showed that among Republicans, an overwhelming 84% say they sympathize more with Israel (1% sympathize more with Arab states); by comparison, just 43% of Democrats do so (12% sympathize more with Arab states).

Democrats can no longer claim to be strong supporters of Israel. In a poll by the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg at the very end of July, when asked whether the U.S. should be more neutral in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah or whether the U.S. should align itself with Israel, Democrats supported neutrality over alignment, 54% to 39%. However, by comparison, Republicans strongly supported alignment with the Jewish state 64% to 29%.

These poll results follow several recent political developments that should also worry Jewish Democrats.

McCain's proposal on detainees is NOT meant to make us safer and more secure; it's meant to help him become president - by mollifying the Dems/doves/Lefties he loves to coddle, as he did with McCain-Feingold, (the biggest assault on free speech in our nation's history).

McCain was a POW to a nation whch was a signatory of the Geneva Conventions at a time when the USA was NEVER even accused of violating the Geneva Conventions, and that did not stop the Vietnamese commies from brutally torturing him.

SO... what makes him think that alQaeda - a non-signatory - will gives a rat's ass how we treat detainees!? After all, alQaeda routinely beheads journalists and even female Muslim charity workers.

McCain is not a dope; he KNOWS this, that's why I am sure his whole entire goal on this issue is purely selfish. He's trying to capture the modrate/centrist position for his race for the WH.

Friday, September 15, 2006

A wave of Muslim outrage is sweeping the globe after Pope Benedict linked Islam with violence.

Benedict did not give Islam hell; he spoke the truth; they just think it's hell. And they're reacting to his words the way they react to everything they don't like: WITH GENOCIDAL RAGE AND VIOLENCE.

I think it's obvious that rage and inhumanity to non-believers (and to their own women) are the most common attributes of Islam. Heck, they friggin riot over cartoons!

WHAT TYPE OF CREED GENERATES THESE KINDS OF BEHAVIORS - ALL THE TIME, ALL OVER THE WORLD? An evil creed.

Jesus spoke about creeds - false creeds and false prophets. What he said is very instructional. Matthew 7:6-20:

You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they?

Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.

Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits.

What are the fruits of Islam? How did it spread from Arabia to Christian North Africa and to Asia? Clues here. And here. And here.

I think it's obvious that by Jesus's measure one must conclude that Mohhumed was a false prophet. This shouldn't surprise anyone - even Muslims; after all, the Quran even relates how Mohummed couldn't even tell the difference between Gabriel and Satan. And that God NEVER spoke to him. Unlike Moses.

Faced with the possibility of an American Hiroshima, many are paralyzed by a combination of denial and fatalism. Either it hasn't happened, so it's not going to happen; or, if it is going to happen, there's nothing we can do to stop it. Both propositions are wrong. The countdown to a nuclear 9/11 can be stopped, but only by a combination of imagination, a clear agenda for action, and fierce determination to pursue it.

Graham Allison is director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is author of Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe (2004).

Thursday, September 14, 2006

... there are 154 Democrats in the House of Representatives who get a 100% rating from the terror apologists at CAIR. Currently there are 201 Democrats total in the House, which means that a full 76%, more than 3/4’s, of them get the CAIR stamp of approval.

On the flip side, there’s only 8 Republicans who get CAIR’s approval out of the 231 GOP’ers in the House. That’s 3.5%.

Think about that. It's STUNNING, really. Three out of four Dems get a 100% rating from jihad's biggest apologists - the Council on American Isalmic Relations. THAT'S 75%! While only 4 out of 100 GOP'ers do.

OBVIOUSLY, the work that the Dove-o-crat appeasers have done to weaken the counter-attack AGAINST jihad is GREATLY APPRECIATED!

BOTTOM-LINE: if you support (appease/apologize for/excuse) jihad and Binladen, then vote Democrat.

At the imposition of the UN Security Council cease-fire resolution... Most analysts insisted that Israel's failure to destroy Hezbollah amounted to a humiliation...These analysts would be surprised to learn that Arabs increasingly view Hezbollah's war as a disaster as well -- but a disaster for Arabs:

JPOST: "... opinion in the Arab world has shifted to more sober analysis, as Lebanon, Hizbullah and the Shi'ites face the daunting task of what will probably be years of multi-billion dollar reconstruction.

Even a cursory perusal of the Arab press, will reveal that Hizbullah's status in Lebanon has changed for the worse, as many Lebanese come to the rather shocking realization that the south of their country, unknown to them, had in fact been transformed into an Iranian and Syrian launching pad against Israel posing an existential threat to their own livelihoods and to their entire country.

AS I SAID AT THE TIME: The war was fought badly and ended too soon, but it went much better for Israel than for the jihadoterrorists. Instead of of winning by a knockout, the IDF won a TKO - because the ref called the fight. That won't happen the next time these two fighters get into the ring.

Our real enemy is within us, in the immense constituency of the half-educated narcissists pouring from our universities each year -- that glib, smug, liberal, and defeatist "victim culture" itself, that inhabits the academy, our media, our legal establishment, the bureaucratic class. The opinion leaders of our society, who live almost entirely off the avails of taxation, make their livelihoods biting the hands that feed them, and undermining the moral order on which our solidarity depends.

"He was one of the originators of public statements that misled the American people into believing that the Iraqi war was justified," the former Democratic president said on CNN's "Larry King Live."

Which is a LIE. (Or, if it's true about Lieberman, then it's equally true of Clinton, Hillary, Gore, Daschle and almost every other Democrat who served in the Senate between 1992 and 2000: IT WAS UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED THAT SADDAM HAD WMD. AND IT IS A FACT THAT SADDAM WAS IN VIOLATION OF UNSCR#1441.

Carter is just an old decrepit tyrant-appeasing Leftie-dove who is absolutely totally entirely full of crap. And directly responsible for the creation of Ayatollahstan.

Carter joins Moulitsas, Sheehan, and Schiavo in criticizing Lieberman. Lamont is obviously in BIG with the anti-Semite crowd of appeasers and defeatists. Lieberman should wear the Carter snub as a badge of honor.

NOTE: More proof that Iraq was a good and just and necessary cause HERE (proof that the Iraq War was always central to the GWOT) and HERE (proof that Saddam was in violation of UNSCR$1441) and HERE (proof that most of the Leftie-dove criticisms of the Iraq War - and by extension Lieberman's support for it - are totally bogus).

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

The "anti-American feeling" of some European politicians is "madness" as the world needs the US to help tackle pressing problems, Tony Blair claims. There is a danger some countries will "pull up the drawbridge and disengage", the prime minister said in a pamphlet published by the Foreign Policy Centre. And he said while the "war on terror" is "unconventional", it can be won by promoting values as much as force.

Right on! Too bad he's been shoved aside before the war is over. WHAT IS IT WITH THE BRITS, ANYWAY?!?! They shoved aside Churchill before VJ Day; Thatcher was overthrown during the Gulf War, and now Blair ahs been effectively forced out right in the middle of the GWOT.

I think it's their ISLAND MENTALITY: as soon as they feel that their little island is safe they bug out. Pity. And the sad thing is that the Tories are pandering to anti-Americanism, too. WHERE ARE THE BRAVE POLITICIANS OF EUROPE?! Long gone - a result of deeply ingrained post-modernism which has it's roots in the terrible costs of WW1.

Which is why - along with their declining demographics, and unpayable future government debt - odds are that Europe will go the way of Byzantium: Paris will become Paristanbul; London - Londonistan.

“First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he ‘thought’ might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column.”

Novak slams Armitage for holding back all this time.

Armitage’s silence for “two and one-half years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source,” Novak explains.

FACT: Armitage was anti-Iraq War.

I assert that he leaked Plame's ID and her role in the Wilson mission in order to BOLSTER Wilson's cred's. When Cheney and Libby Rove became SUSPECTS (a secondary and unplanned for side-effect of the leak), Armitage kept silent because HE WAS HAPPY HE'D HURT THEM - AND BUSH. And Powell played along.

Mearsheimer and Sears and Sheehan and Moore and a dozen Democrat members of Congress are anti-Semites who believe that Israel (or the Likud, the neocons, or the JOOOOOOZE!) control USA foreign policy. HERE ARE THE FACTS; via The Corner. Excerpt:

... repeated U.S. administrations came to power predisposed to associate with the Arab world and to disassociate from Israel. In the end, they all recognized that relations with the Arab states were not the inverse of those with Israel. Most came to acknowledge the worth of Israel as a steadfast ally in a volatile region.

The irony is that Israel was and is such a reliable ally because of shared cultural, religious, and intellectual affinities, the very qualities that so many "realist" officials in Washington downplay with pride and on principle when making decisions and devising policy on the Middle East.

... the importance of U.S.-Israeli relations is not the consequence of the strength of the Israel lobby, but rather the strength of the Israel lobby is a consequence of the importance of U.S.-Israeli relations.

Well, we certainly could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble if we'd acted more vigorously in the 1990s. But hindsight is always 20/20.

I think we're making a similarly weak counter-attack to this day. That's why I feel we're the path to another 9/11 - only worse.

I think that Bush has done well in the GWOT, but he has not done enough. We could have been much more ruthless at Tora Bora, and Ramadi and Falluja and Najaf. We could have let Israel destroy Hizballah. He could EASILY be tougher on Putin and China and Iran and North Korea. And Saudi Arabia, and Syria and Lebanon.

DON'T GET ME WRONG: I am NOT saying that we're losing. We're winning, but not decisiely. WHY?! We're using half-measures which allow the enemy to retain more strength and maneuverability than he might otherwise have. It might even be enough for them to stage another huge and horrific attack. Here.

I feel that FDR and Truman and LBJ and Nixon were more ruthless in how they fought their wars, and that Bush (like GHW Bush in 1991, and Clinton in the Serbian War) has fought this war with one hand tied behind his back. Maybe it's a hangover form the Vietnam Syndrome? Maybe it's a result of all that "IRAQ=VIETNAM" defeatist BS/PR in the MSM and the DNC?

BOTTOM LINE: The way things are going now, in 2008 Glenn Reynolds will probably write:

"... we certainly could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble if we'd acted more vigorously in the last 8 years. But hindsight is always 20/20."

I hope not. I hope Bush stops fighting like a wussie and wimp. And soon.

I think we've been counter-attacking with one hand tied behind our back. I wish we'd nuked Tora Bora on 2001, and fire-bombed Ramadi and Falluja. And we should have assassinated Saddam, Nasrallah and Al Sadr and Assad. But then.. we probably should've attacked Tehran in 1979, and assassinated Kaddafy and Khomeini. The world would be a better place.

The longer we wait - and the more we put off the inevitable, the worse the costs of the inevitable will become.

It's really time for a few more ultimatums. It's overdue. And then we must take decisive action. Military action. It's the least we can do for the victims of jihadoterror and for the defense of liberty.

Barbara would have no time for any of the Bidens, Hagels, Lugars, Deans, Kennedys and Murthas who tell us we are wrong to be angry, wrong to seek the destruction of our enemies, wrong to advance freedom, wrong to defend our borders, wrong to use every technological miracle to discover and divine our enemies’ intentions, wrong to lock away captured killers.

She would spit at the very idea of coming to terms with those who want us dead or dominated. She would have cancelled her subscriptions to the New York Times and the Washington Post, because she would not want the poison in her house, and she would not want to give a nickel to the corrupt rich kids who own and guide the papers.

She would be right. And she must be avenged.

YES: She and all the vitims of jihadoterror must be avenged. And liberty and universal rights expanded, not diminished. As a revolutionary liberal intellectual says: FASTER, PLEASE!

"We"--and our allies--simply have to become more ruthless and more experienced. .. fight on the worst imaginable terrain, and gradually to learn how toconfront, infiltrate, "turn," isolate and kill the worst imaginable enemy. These are faculties that we shall be needing in the future.

Kill them. Not negotiate. Kill. And demand that other Muslim nations cooperate or ... else, because you are either with us, or them. Like Lebanon and all the others... if they are not helping us kill the enemy, then they are the enemy.

It's the least we can do for the victims, and for the defense of our civilization.